RationalMadman

pro just posted to say the debate is moving, both sides therefore never argued a thing

ff .

c .

ff .

annihilation

Slamdunk...

Conduct: Plagiarism by Pro, Round 3 calling Con several curse words as well as accusing Con of being morally corrupt and a member of a real world conspiracy. Con didn't really violated Conduct other than having an arrogance throughout.

S&G: Pro had worse S&G and both debaters used a terrible amount of quote stacking that made it extremley difficult to read their Rounds so I leave tied as Pro's S&G errors didn't reduce legibility that much and Con was just as bad with that quote-stack nonsense.

Sources: Pro fails to use sources throughout the debate, not just with the plagiarism but even to back the claims of conspiracy and that bacteria and viruses are a hoax whereas vitamins cause diseases... None of this is sourced at all throughout the debate. Con uses New York Times and World Health Organization in Round 1, amongst other sources, to back his claims. Therefore, Con automatically win the Sources point.

Arguments: Pro's entire Round 1 is disqualified as it's plagiarised. Therefore, Pro actually made nearly 0 constructive arguments of his own. Even if we consider the Round 1, Pro's case is a series of claims, with zero expansion or proof, accusing Con and the CDC of being in on a conspiracy together while backing absolutely nothing up. Con's case is that both eyewitnesses and the deaths attributed to Covid are genuinely so. Con's case also suffers from assertion-without-proof syndrome but less so than Pro's. For instance, Con baselessly says that Pro is wrong about denying germ theory, while providing literally 0 URL or books to back his own claim up that diseases are indeed caused by said microbes. He also strangely relies on two anecdotal quotes that suffer from 'appeal to authority' simply because one is a doctor etc but Pro never counters Con's appeal to authority without himself failing to provide any source with authority or even without (Pro's only source is himself as the asserter).

FF .

slam dunk no worries

Full forfeit/concession

Full forfeit

FF but because it was a banned user, this should be deleted

RFD in comments.

Con broke the rule about 'no semantics' meaning Con abusing the term 'I' the way that he did, itself was a violation.

Pro violated the forfeit rule but correctly points out, in Round 2, that this further cements the resolution as true since he is securing his own defeat.

Just as likely that a nation run by psychopaths that separate muslim children from their parents and brainwash them was making a biological weapon as it is that a zombie bat infected a man who became the original covid vampire of Wuhan province.

, ,

, ,

The rule is dumb but I guess it does apply. Rule 7 was violated.

Cowardly rule but a rule nonetheless.

Conceded in last Round

slam dunk

Conceded..

Instigator forfeits all Rounds after Round 1

Ragnar....

Absolute facepalm material. Free win.

If you report my vote, it will backfire. You are getting free wins from your IRL buddies, this is just pathetic.

Do the talking lily

Conceded by Pro...

FF ⠀

⠀ ⠀

Conceded by Pro

Danielle...

Why

Both conceded that the characters are equally good then forfeited all Rounds after Round 1

Essentially an FF from Con, if you forfeit all rounds after round 1 it's officially FF and Con's R1 was some irrelavant poem/song that verges on plagiarism.

FF .

Forfeit - Conduct plus Round 3 from Con was almost a forfeit too.

Only Pro uses sources effectively (only uses sources actually, from what I can see Con doesn't use a single external reference).

I think Pro makes a few significant errors with S&G in general.

In Round 1, Pro says "PRO can't make intellectual arguments to dispute my evidence since it's all subjective." That is one of quite a few strange errors (use of 'PRO' instead of 'CON' for starters) and keeps switching around words instead of cute, such as 'attractive' and 'pretty' that in a debate like this significantly matter because at times it's not clear what on Earth Pro is actually saying about the budgies in specific sections. Con even capitalises on this in Round 1.

Another example of very strange S&G is doing this to the resolution:

"Resolution: Budgerigars are attractive or pretty"

This is really dirty play semantically but more importantly it makes Con seem to be able to attack either resolution (the actual resolution or the new one Pro has strangely twisted words to be the resolution) instead of what it tried to do; force Con to attack only the new one and concede to the old one.

S&G is so significantly warped by Pro that I am positively telling you I could not process the points, I don't care how casual the topic is, if this were a more serious topic it would blatantly be worthy of the vote so I will vote here. Pro's Round 1 in particular was an S&G disaster.

Con is clear throughout, so S&G to Con.

Arguments go to Pro because in Round 2, Pro accepts Con's kritiks and attacks and starts to elaborate on what cute itself means and how budgies can be argued to meet aspects of it, though I feel 'childish' was really weakly defended, Con never replies to or attacks it.

More importantly, Pro turns the Kritik back onto Con saying that if it is subjective, Con can't prove they aren't cute, only that they aren't VERY cute in essence (end of Pro's Round 2 highlights this explicitly). Con never rebukes.

Concession

Concession (functionally identical to FF in voting can just spam all points to the conceded-to side).

Pro does something very interesting in Round 2 but in my opinion he would have won the debate much more efficiently if he didn't try to out-Kritik Con and instead stuck to 'this debate' meaning the debate being had.

I want to note that the debate that occurred is 100% semantic. Both sides were terrible are grasping that to severe degrees. The word 'This' and the word 'win' were absolutely essential for either side to define in order to objectively win the debate.

However, this autowin trap by Pro still succeeds.

Pro's case was barely won or developed in his Round 1. In fact, his Round 1 was absurd because 0% probability is literally the same thing as 'impossible' unless it's Rounded down to the nearest whole number percentage and is between 0 and 0.5%.

I don't think Pro's Round 1 at all wins him the debate, however Con's Round 1 is just as bad and I am left thinking WTF the debate is about. Con says that he will lose the debate but that he will lose it for all the wrong reasons and that this goes against debating's beneficial principles.

If Con had extended the Round 1 to include a definition of 'win' that implies that to truly win a debate, you need to garner the benefits of debating like critical thinking skills, Con may have formed an actual point of Contention there.

In Round 2, Pro rebukes Con's thesis on the basis of 'this debate' mentioned in the resolution and description being a theoretical vacuum which, in fact, isn't the debate being had.

That sums up the only rebuttal made. I don't consider brand new points in the final Round as valid to take into account so only rebuttals are measured by me. The only time this isn't true is in 1-Round debates.

Con then brings up brand new points of his/her/their own in Round 2. If Con had mentioned in their opening case that he's/she's/they're contending that the debate can be won if Con wins over the mods and audience, then I would have counted it as a solid point as then if Pro didn't rebuke it sufficiently in Round 2, it is fair to consider that a 'score' against Pro.

Pro didn't get an opportunity to prove that breaking the rules isn't viable for Con, there was no Round 3. Therefore, I disqualify the point because it was raised in a situation where Pro couldn't give a rebuttal.

To win, which Pro had 100% chance to force autowin with, all Pro had to do is to give a definition of 'Prove' and work with it to explain why the one being proven to needs to be convinced, in order to validate the 'prove to' being done successfully by Con.

Pro didn't do this, in fact Pro explicitly makes clear that he/she/they hasn't read Con's arguments.

Con assumes Pro is a 'he' which is actually erroneous to do, people should be defaulted to 'they' or if you insist on singular pronouns then 'he/she' until they specify what gender and pronoun they identify as.

As for Pro, the laziness is also bad conduct.

Only Con used sources and used them exactly the way Pro should have, to define 'prove' but it was in the last Round which was dirty play however it's irrelevant how dirty the play was since Pro's entire debate was a dirty play autowin.

Pro FF post-R1

Full forfeit

LOL! This is unrated so I feel less pressure to leave it as a tie but I'll leave it as a tie anyway.

I will tell you why it's a tie. I actually buy Nevets' counterargument more. The CoC of this website (or ToS or ToU whatever) do not truly mean the to-the-letter hierarchy of what voters value. After all, abusive descriptions at times are upheld by voters and punish the contender, at other times the opposite.

In this instance the instigator was screwed over by his own lack of foresight as Nevets had a huge justification for assuming he was Con and that rather than the short description being erroneous, he easily could justify (and did justify) assuming the red vs green was an irrelevant error on Theweakeredge's part.

If Nevets had offered a single argument in favour of the Con side, he would have won this debate had weakeredge not countered him, in my eyes.

He unfortunately did not.

Both sides played dirty. Therefore Conduct is tied.

Pro forgot something important. In his Description, he laid out a plan for this feature to be optional. It literally says this is to be the equivalent of an optional debate setting for debate-initiators on edeb8.

Him forgetting this is the only reason why his autowin was lost. He forgot this and it was the only sufficient rebuttal to Con's impact case regarding debates where the superior debater forfeits a Round.

The reason I myself didn't accept this debate is that I saw Pro had autowin because it would be an optional setting that both debaters consent to (like character count and time per argument).

For the reason that Pro never brought up the optional aspect of it, Con's case holds much more water than it should have and Con won the debate. The reason Con wins is because Pro essentially admits what happened to the forfeiting side in the showcased debate, shouldn't have been a loss. He calls it an edge-case and says it doesnt happen often enough to matter.

I know personally that I am the single best andost frequent user to win debates where I forfeited a Round or two but I am am enigma and Con doesn't focus on me at all so I ignore this. Nonetheless, I do not think Pro realises what he admitted. He admitted that in these fringe cases his idea falls apart and he then tries to focus on punctuality mattering more than debating ability which he doesn't expand enough on for me to buy into.

Post-R1 FF

Unfortunate as Con bad begun a good case for the physics.

Post-R1 FF .

ff .

Too much of this debate was taken lightheartedly by both sides. I avoid topics like this but given that I've read debates by the Pro side before, I was curious why he'd remake a topic twice implying he had a stronger case this time.

The word 't****ist' is not to ever be used lightheartedly. Pro seems to be confusing the term with criminal as well as corrupt. For instance, Pro alludes to systemic racism being proof of the resolution as follows:

"Not to forget, I was referring to COVID as a man-made virus because the natural version of coronavirus has always existed. As far as the royal family, I simply used them as an example of systemic racism because systemic racism is a form of terrorism. "

I don't even understand why these sentences are placed consecutively in the same paragraph but both are so shockingly ignorant that it's extremely difficult to be Tabula Rasa in this particular debate. Coronavirus hasn't ALWAYS naturally existed, this is actually what many conspiracy theorists are raising as points, even worse it did indeed appear before the Chinese outbreak in an Italian lab but that's another debate for another day.

https://www.news-medical.net/news/20201117/SARS-CoV-2-was-circulating-in-Italy-before-China-recognized-its-existence.aspx

The sentence that follows tells us that Pro has no true idea what t-ism is. It is of course true that in some cases the government itself were the t-ists, especially when enforcing systemic racism with intent (as opposed to incidental systemic racism). Con points this out many times:

"Pro has refused to offer any reason why a group committing lower rates of violence would somehow mark them so much more frequent at violence to be labeled to generally be a bunch of terrorists."

This is the clearest-cut rebuttal Con makes to the continual fusing of criminals, corruption and t-ism. Racist corruption isn't identical to t-ism, they can be intertwined in extremely tyrannical cases but Pro wasn't really implying that. What Pro's overall case seems to be is that it is in fact subtle and undercutting 'hits' to blacks that whites as a whole are committing, which is indeed unlike the 'burst damage' nature of t-ism, as con correctly points out many times, even citing definition.

As far as sources go, Pro's own source was used against him very obviously with the FBI data but also another time (it wasn't direct but it happened, I needn't cite it to justify the vote) and in general, he was using .com articles to back up some random statement that didn't hit home a point as much as add emotional emphasis to how important he felt his statement was.

In contrast, Con used .gov, .org websites on top of .coms and used them to back up statements and data, other than some unnecessary comedy here and there where, for instance, he used a source in the final Round to make fun of Pro. Throughout the debate, both debaters were snarky and severely condescending to one another, Ragnar/Con was just more careful and concealed with his barbed remarks on Pro's 'capacity for coherence' so on and so forth. Pro was more blatant and especially went out of his way to end each Round with a rude quip aimed at Con.

Therefore, the Conduct point is tied because both sides were ridiculous.

Pro forfeits more Rounds and basically has 0 rebuttals altogether.

ff ,

50% forfeit

In this debate, Pro not only accepted the debate in 100% bad faith but did so lazily and in a humiliating manner not just to his opponent, no not at all, but to all flat-earthers. Too many clowns take the flat earth stance as a joke and misrepresent the logic within the theory, this goes beyond that and flat out humiliates the entire concept implying that Pro couldn't ever defend flat-earth theory itself so has to resort to nonsensical semantics to win.

On top of completely ignoring the debte description's definition of what the flat Earth model is, Pro furthermore claims Con has 'conceded' when Con did nothing of the sort. I take this personally, as I myself believe the Earth is flat and know just how much stigma there is against this theory because it indeed involves conspiracy theories regarding NASA and Roscosmos (other space stations all answer to them). I do not vote based on that bias, nonetheless I am telling you that I don't find this shit funny, it's debates like this that make people assume all flat-earthers are faking it or are morons, instead of that there are intelligent and genuine flat-earthers.

Con uses sources to back up every single point he makes, from that NASA claims to have travelled to space to even turning the satellite point against Pro (which Pro tried to weirdly turn against Con and used a NASA and Space.com source to back up flat-earth theory...) I don't know what more to say, Pro doesn't use sources close to as efficiently or without self-harm to his case as Con does.

Pro tries to make the debate about the Earth being curved in 'spacetime'. Spacetime is a concept strictly tied to round-earth theory and is based on us being in a massive universe with galaxies in it (such that lightyears exist as a unit of spacetime), as opposed to flat-earth theory that holds that the sky is largely an illusion and perhaps a destiny map with only the sun and moon being actual objects rotating around the Earth.

Now, I am aware this is me debating against Pro, it is therefore pertinent to notice that Con doesn't need to dismiss any of these ridiculous points because the debate description (which Pro agreed to upon accepting the debate) defines flat-earth model as the archaic model which I know is one with Antarctica as an outer edge/barrier and is by no means whatsoever a 'spacetime' semantic loophole.

Pro does NOT REPLY TO ANY of Con's arguments AT ALL!

He doesn't explain how refraction of light explains ships disappearing over the horizon (due to the 'falling effect' of distanct objects as they mesh with the ground up to a point of no distinction that's more blatant on sunny days due to mirage effects), in fact every single point Con makes in Round 1 hold true by the end of the debate because Pro is too lazy to address a single one in his (absence of) rebuttals.

This is not how to debate. I refuse to reward it.